Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32190690›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2020

Comparisons of Efficacy between Autograft and Allograft on Defect Repair

Chris H Dreyer, Marina Rasmussen, Rasmus Hestehave Pedersen, Søren Overgaard, Ming Ding

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Polymeric Nanoparticles for Wound Healing.Pharmaceutical nanotechnology · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. ON Path: outpatient nonunion pathway for lower-extremity nonunions.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chris H DreyerOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3762-0559
Marina RasmussenOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Rasmus Hestehave PedersenOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Søren OvergaardOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Ming DingOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6610-8079
University of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

method24 female Norwegian brown rats were included, 12 normal rats and 12 induced with osteoporosis (OP). OP inducement was verified in vivo by bone volume fraction (BV/TV) at 90 days after ovariectomy (OVX). The primary surgery in each rat consisted of a 2.5 × 3 mm hole in the proximal tibia, bilaterally. Autograft and allograft were randomly allocated in the right and left tibia. After an observation of 21 days, the rats were sacrificed. Tibia samples were harvested, micro-CT scanned for bone inducement and microarchitectural properties, and then embedded for histology.

resultsThe OP induction was verified three months after the OVX by a reduction of 68.5% in the trabecular bone BV/TV compared to normal bone. Microarchitectural analysis and histology showed no significant differences in the bone-forming capabilities between autograft and allograft in normal or osteoporotic bone after 3 weeks.

conclusionThis study did not demonstrate any difference between autograft and allograft in a normal or osteoporotic rat tibial defect model after 21 days, suggesting allograft is a good alternative to autograft.

Indexed as

Bone TransplantationAllograftsAnimalsAutograftsBone and BonesBone DensityFemaleOsteoporosisOvariectomyRatsTibiaTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation, HomologousX-Ray Microtomography

Identifiers

PMID32190690
PMCPMC7073494
OpenAlexW3010213506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.